In 2016, police in Spokane executed a search warrant. The police were seeking evidence of stolen cars. They arrested three people. As they were being booked into the jail, one of the defendants was searched and methamphetamine was found in the pocket of the pants she was wearing. The defendant asserted that she bought the jeans used, and did not know about the drugs in the pocket. The case was tried to the court as a bench trial. The court found the defendant guilty of possession of methamphetamine.
On appeal, Blake argued that “requiring her to prove unwitting possession to [sic] the charged offense violates due process.” State v. Blake, No. 35601-9-III, slip op. at 1 (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2019) http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/356019_unp.pdf.
The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and found that possession of a controlled substance is a strict liability crime. Essentially, if you possess the controlled substance regardless of if you know you possess the drug then you are guilty. State v. Cleppe. 96 Wn.2d 373, 635 P.2d 435 (1981)
The simple possession statute states “It is unlawful for any person to possess a controlled substance . . . .” RCW 69.50.4013(1). https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4013. There is no mens rea (mental state) so the State does not have to prove that the defendant knowingly possessed the substance.
The Supreme Court explained that the State has legitimate purpose in protecting and preventing harmful behavior, but that the police power is not limitless. The State’s police power is limited by the due process clause or “by constitutional protection afforded certain personal liberties.” Talley, 122 Wn.2d at 199 (citing Olympic Forest Prods., Inc. v. Chaussee Corp., 82 Wn.2d 418, 435, 511 P.2d 1002 (1973)).
The Court found that the rule against criminalizing “essentially innocent” conduct, does not have such exceptions, and it applies with special force to passive conduct—or nonconduct—that is unaccompanied by intent, knowledge, or mens rea.
The Court held that the strict liability of RCW 69.50.4013 without a mens rea was unconstitutional.
If you’re looking for more insights into possession of controlled substances related to the Blake decision, explore the articles below. They cover a range of topics, from legal consequences and case analyses to procedural changes in Washington law. These resources will help you better understand the complexities of drug possession cases and the far-reaching implications of the Blake ruling.
State v. Willyard: Washington Supreme Court Guilty Pleas After Blake Ruling
- This article delves into how the Washington Supreme Court addressed the issue of guilty pleas following the landmark Blake ruling. It highlights the court’s stance on whether prior convictions should be revisited.
Read more here
Washington Appeals Court: State v. Drake – Resentencing and Offender Score After Blake Ruling
- In this case, the Washington Court of Appeals explored resentencing and how offender scores must be recalculated in light of the Blake decision, affecting the sentences of numerous individuals.
Learn more here
Balles Case: Washington Court of Appeals Ruling Post-Blake Decision
- The Balles case further emphasizes how courts are reshaping sentences in response to the Blake ruling, particularly focusing on drug possession charges and their lasting impact.
Check out the full article here
State v. Olsen: Washington Supreme Court Guilty Plea and the Blake Ruling
This article discusses the Washington Supreme Court’s review of guilty pleas in the wake of the Blake ruling and how they impact cases where drug possession charges were involved.
Read the full details here
If you have been convicted of a possession charge of illegal narcotics in the State of Washington you should call an attorney. You can reach our office at ken@blanfordlaw.com or call us at 253-720-9304.
